How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God?

[RobertMazar]

Logical and analytical thinking dictate that the Bible is the Word Of God.
:shades

 

[Paidion]

Logical and analytical thinking dictate that the Bible is the Word Of God.

And that thinking is.....?

I'm not challenging the assertion, just asking for opinions. the Bible claiming that it is the Word of God doesn't prove that it is. It's a circular argument.

Worse than that. You cannot find such a claim in the Bible. The following passage will not do:

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16

1.This passage does not state that scripture is "the Word of God", but that it is "inspired by God".
2. This passage does not tell us what is meant by "scripture". The Greek word can mean "writing". The New Testament had not yet been completed, and so "scripture" could not mean "the Bible". Probably "scripture" refers to the Old Testament canon. In that case, it does not include the New Testament.
3. The passage could be legitimately translated:

Every writing inspired by God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16

 

[wavy]

This might be somewhat compelling if it were not so easily refuted by the NT's literary dependence on the OT. The prophecies, morever, when examined in their original contexts in the books where they are found are almost always totally unrelated to their recorded 'fulfillments' in the NT.

Eric,

If numerous predictions made by a theory prove true, that is compelling evidence in support of the theory. Could you expand on your 2 points please?

Best wishes,
SB

Fair enough.

1. Literary dependence.

For one example, prophecy buffs often claim the crucifixion narratives in the four gospels are some kind of supernatural 'fulfillment' of Psalm xxii, since all of them quote or allude to it and make the connection with Jesus' passion. This is of course ridiculous since all four gospel authors wrote their crucifixion accounts with the text of Psalm xxii before them. That is why certain elements in the psalm are present in them because they had literary access to it and obviously incorporated certain theological motifs in the psalm into their narratives. It isn't genuine prophecy. The psalm itself is not even prophetic.

2. Original context

Take Matthew ii.17, which quotes Jeremiah xxxi.15 in connection with Herod's assault on the infants of Bethlehem, an event most scholars consider non-historical anyway. But even granting this event's historicity, when we look at the quote in its original context in Jeremiah, we find that it has nothing to do with a future event concerning anyone named Jesus or Herod or with infants, but with the depopulation and promised restoration of the tribes of northern Israel (or Ephraim; see verses 16-22). Again, this is not genuine prophecy, and the verse as it stands in Jeremiah is not a prediction of the future but a poetic way to describe the sufferings and captivity of northern Israel during that historical period, not a future period.


Each of the prophecies in the NT 'fulfilled' by Jesus are liable to the same criticisms, and so it's difficult to take the claims for the fulfillment of genuine prophecy in the NT seriously.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[stranger]

wavy wrote:

1. Literary dependence.

For one example, prophecy buffs often claim the crucifixion narratives in the four gospels are some kind of supernatural 'fulfillment' of Psalm xxii, since all of them quote or allude to it and make the connection with Jesus' passion. This is of course ridiculous since all four gospel authors wrote their crucifixion accounts with the text of Psalm xxii before them. That is why certain elements in the psalm are present in them because they had literary access to it and obviously incorporated certain theological motifs in the psalm into their narratives. It isn't genuine prophecy. The psalm itself is not even prophetic.

2. Original context

Take Matthew ii.17, which quotes Jeremiah xxxi.15 in connection with Herod's assault on the infants of Bethlehem, an event most scholars consider non-historical anyway. But even granting this event's historicity, when we look at the quote in its original context in Jeremiah, we find that it has nothing to do with a future event concerning anyone named Jesus or Herod or with infants, but with the depopulation and promised restoration of the tribes of northern Israel (or Ephraim; see verses 16-22). Again, this is not genuine prophecy, and the verse as it stands in Jeremiah is not a prediction of the future but a poetic way to describe the sufferings and captivity of northern Israel during that historical period, not a future period.


Each of the prophecies in the NT 'fulfilled' by Jesus are liable to the same criticisms, and so it's difficult to take the claims for the fulfillment of genuine prophecy in the NT seriously.

Hi wavy,

Greetings, if I were an atheist interested in the scriptures it would be 'studing the scriptures as literature' as they do in universities that have no relation to the Church. My assumption would be that there is no God and therefore He could not speak nor reveal Himself through events in history, nor the recording of those events in the so called written word. As a former atheist I would not have said that nor expressed it like that because I had no notion of what the 'revelation of God was in Jesus Christ.' Since those days I have had two remarkable encounters with God and a few with the demonic. I had/have to interpret these events which are uniquely personal experiences.

As to your comments about prophesy (and poetry?) is there any scripture that you would say is genuine prophesy? I find it remarkable that you use the words 'genuine prophesy'. As far as I can tell your path to genuine faith won't be through your reasoning.

Take care

 

[wavy]

As to your comments about prophesy (and poetry?) is there any scripture that you would say is genuine prophesy?

When I say 'genuine prophecy' as it pertains to the bible, I mean the coming to pass of an event that was explicitly foretold long-range (i.e., it was written long before the event so that it couldn't be deduced, and isn't vague or applicable to numerous possible events) and couldn't be explained by literary dependence (see example above) or some other naturalistic alternative (such as self-fulfilling prophecy or a prophecy where the fulfillment is inevitable or highly probable).

I find it remarkable that you use the words 'genuine prophesy'. As far as I can tell your path to genuine faith won't be through your reasoning.

It will have to be. If the formation of a belief is not based on some kind of reasoning, it is irrational by definition.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Joe67]

Knowledge as dogmatized by human authority tells us that if we disobey we will experience some form of loss/pain/death. This knowledge comes to some as the will of God and this knowledge is verified by the written word. The transgression of this knowledge, as from God, but through human authority is the lowest level of the conviction for sin.

This knowledge and this conviction of sin and the forgiveness of God is the elemental work of God to give us to believe that He has spoken to us through Moses, the Psalms, the Prophets and now in this last time by His Son, Jesus and the apostles that Jesus sent forth.

It cannot be academically known, this Word of God. He comes to us when we are not thinking about Him coming.

Joe